USING SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGIES
IN HOSPITALITY SETTING
Hamilton Pozo
Fatec Rubens Lara, Brazil
E-mail: hprbrazil@hotmail.com
Telma Aline Torrichelli
Centro
Universitário Amparense – UNIFIA, Brazil
E-mail: telmaatorricelli@gmail.com
Submission: 12/02/2018
Revision: 29/03/2018
Accept: 04/04/2018
ABSTRACT
The
goal of this research is to focus on the organizational commitment factors of
implementing a hospitality program using self-service technologies in the
cluster of knitwear and clothing in the city of Socorro/SP. The data collected
from the employees of this cluster was analyzed using a questionnaire with a
Likert scale of agreement and open questions. The research is characterized as
exploratory in nature; such methods are employed in the qualitative and
quantitative evaluations of the model. The results were analyzed using
non-parametric statistics techniques, as well as further correlation analyses
and Cronbach's alpha. The results answered the research objectives, and they
showed an unsatisfactory outcome for the barrier of information processing in
the cluster that was examined.
Keywords: Cluster, Barriers, Hospitality
Program, self-service technologies
1. INTRODUCTION
The
management of the implementation of self-service technologies (SSTs) in a hospitality
program has been reported by several authors Lashley and Rowson (2005), Ip; Leung and Law (2011), Chathoth (2007), O’Connor (2008) and Laudon and Laudon. 2010), but
the use of SSTs is evolving, as more companies adopt the technology and seek
new applications for it.
Many
companies in Brazil have begun to use such systems, and the lead has been taken
by airlines, which have installed self-service kiosks to expedite check-in and
as an aid to their processes. As another example, the cluster of jewelry and
bijoux in Limeira/SP has implemented self-service ordering devices at each
store in the city as a way of improving customer service levels.
The
opportunities arising from the implementation of SSTs appear to be numerous,
not only because customers appear to have a strong preference for them, but
also because there are cost savings for their operators. Using SSTs, some
companies could up-sell by making more products or services available on the
screen of a kiosk without increasing the labor costs associated with the
hospitality program. SSTs will be able to assist hospitality operators to
increase their customer retention by displaying more personalized information
on kiosk screens or on other devices.
When
customers use SSTs, the software recognizes the customers, acknowledges their
previous visits, recalls their preferences, communicates with the customers and
presents other customized information. This approach will enhance customer
relationship management, thereby creating a competitive advantage. The expected
support that this research will provide to companies can be summarized as a
description of the barriers to efficiency that will be faced in the
implementation of hospitality programs with SSTs.
The
survey should also contribute to the development of applied technology, the
perfection of concepts and techniques and the validation of supportive
practical decisions. Thus, it is important to reveal how well-prepared managers
are to tackle barriers to the implementation of hospitality programs with SSTs
by administering a questionnaire that will indicate the barriers that they are
already prepared to face and the barriers that still represent difficulties.
The textile industry was one of
the first to be developed and established in Brazil. With regard to the
generation of industrial products in the state of São Paulo, the knitwear and
clothing sector represents about 1% of the entire manufacturing industry
(SEBRAE, 2009). Within this sector, 90% refers to the manufacture of articles
of clothing, and accessories stand out, although they are concentrated in the
Metropolitan Region of São Paulo and the Campinas region (SEBRAE, 2009).
A consideration of this negative
performance is of utmost importance, so that the knitwear and clothing sector
will be aware of such numbers, and thus, will increasingly seek tools to
improve its performance. The expected support that this research will provide
for these companies is summarized as a presentation of the types of barriers
that they will face in implementing hospitality programs with SSTs.
This
research also may contribute to improvements in the management of micro and
small businesses (MSB), because research shows that MSBs lack information and
knowledge about the importance of using certain tools or philosophies to reduce
their rate of failure (SEBRAE, 2010), as 27% of MSBs in São Paulo close in
their first year of activity.
The
survey should also contribute to the development of applied technology, the
perfection of concepts and techniques, and the validation of supportive
practical decisions. Thus, it is important to address how well managers are
prepared to tackle barriers to the implementation of hospitality programs by
administering a questionnaire that will reveal the barriers that they are
already prepared to face and the barriers that still represent difficulties. As
a result, operators will be able to increase their customers’ intention to use
SSTs or to improve their satisfaction levels while they utilize SSTs. Moreover,
the investment in SSTs will result in higher returns from hospitality programs.
2.
LITERATURE
REVIEW
2.1.
Micro
and small businesses
Micro and small businesses (MSB)
constitute approximately 98% of the companies operating in Brazil. The micro
and small businesses (MSB) in cities tend to be started by heads of families,
who form the companies, and the children work and learn, with the parents, to
practice their business. Then, these children acquire their own businesses, but
their fathers remain in the market, thus multiplying the number of active
companies.
This may be related to the
growing trend, in municipalities, of companies that operate within the same
activity and/or segment and that appear as a cluster that is located within a
geographic concentration. The study object, knitwear and clothing, in
Socorro/SP, appear as a cluster located within a geographic concentration that
acts within the same activity and/or segment.
According to Olave and Amato
Neto (2001), this geographical and sectorial concentration is evidence of the
formation of a cluster, although it not enough to generate benefits for all of
its members. However, companies concentrated in the same geographic area
naturally behave as a system; this system is independent of the companies, and
they may not be aware of their participation in such a grouping (ZACARELLI,
2005).
According explains Zacerelli
(2005) that companies do not need to apply to participate in this
"competitive cluster"; as companies emerge and concentrations appear,
they have an advantage over companies that are geographically isolated.
Their advantages over existing
companies that are geographically isolated needs to be well crafted, according
to Zacarelli et al. (2008); this was a recent study of clusters, and there are
many clusters in training that compete with individual companies. When
companies are concentrated, this tends to resolve certain problems that
typically would not be resolved if they were isolated.
In the view of Porter (1998), a
cluster is defined as a concentration of interconnected companies in a
particular geographic field that encompasses major industries and entities that
compete. They include, for example, specialized suppliers of raw materials,
machinery and services, and they provide a specialized infrastructure.
Martins et al. (2011) is a study of a cluster and supply
chain that examines the experience of an industry; this study concludes that
the integration of the agents of a supply chain and a cluster that is
geographically concentrated have a positive impact. Porter (1998) suggests that
companies build a competitive advantage through their proximity to each other
and through being close to their suppliers, which provides cost savings.
However, many companies tend to choose to continue to work in isolation.
The same way, Iacono and Nagano
(2009) identified some factors that can inhibit collaboration among a cluster
of companies, including: lack of information, lack of capital or financial
resources, low-skilled labor, resource constraints with respect to machinery
and equipment, lack of confidence, organizational culture, capacity
constraints, conflicts of interest, lack of a holistic view of the business,
obsolete technology and interest rates.
In the context of clusters, it
is important to know about some items that contribute to maturity that appear
within a cluster. Petter et al. (2011) show that clusters provide good
qualities like maturity, productivity, flexibility and productive capacity, but
they make it clear that this requires detailed planning and a synergy of
effort.
One important field that helps
businesses, regardless of their size, is logistics, which is a relatively new
field of study, compared with traditional fields, such as finance, marketing
and production (BALLOU, 2001). It deals with all of the activities related to
handling, storage and information, with the aim of facilitating the flow of
information and innovation to the point of final consumption (POZO, 2010).
2.2.
Self-service
technologies
Innovations
and diffusion in processes are communicated over time through certain channels
among the members of the cluster. Each member of the cluster system faces
innovation decisions, which follow a five-step process: knowledge, persuasion,
decision, implementation, and confirmation. During the persuasion phase, a
number of factors influence the potential adaptors’ decision to adopt or reject
an innovation. Particularly, customer experiences and the attributes of the
innovations have an impact on the adoption of SSTs.
However,
some innovation constructs are more appropriate for employee-related
applications rather than applications for hospitality customers. The relative
advantages of innovations are similar to the construct of perceived usefulness,
and the complexity of the implementation of the innovation was renamed as the ease
of use, which provides consistency with other emerging models that are being
adopted in the field of information systems.
In
the SST context, these concepts identify the sources of satisfactory
evaluations by customers with respect to the implementation of SSTs. The
results indicate that satisfaction with SSTs is driven by improvements or
additional benefits, such as cost reductions and customer satisfaction with the
system and the hospitality program, including the ease of use, saved time, and
overall convenience.
Contrary
to the common perception that hospitality programs do not use information
systems, IT (for example, SST) systems are used throughout such clusters. Fuchs
et al. (2009) list eleven applications that are typically employed in hotels. These
include hospitality actions, cost and accounting systems, enterprise resource
planning (ERP), yield management, human resources management (HRM), electronic
customer relationship management, intranet, email marketing, websites with
booking functionality, e-procurement and online platforms.
The
core applications installed in many clusters are planning systems and cost and
accounting systems, which handle front- and back-office operations. Chief
financial officers believe that using computer applications in their front
offices has a significant impact on productivity. Studies that have examined
the relationship between SSTs and business management have confirmed the value
of IT.
Fang
et al. (2011) surveyed 177 employees from four hospitality programs to examine
how job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, self-efficacy, and overall job characteristics) influence
organizational commitment. Predictive effects were found in skill variety and
task significance, which exerted a strong influence upon the degree of an
employee’s organizational commitment to the implementation a hospitality
program.
Lee
(2000) conducted a study to identify the impact of interpersonal working
relationships on hotel employees’ justice perceptions and the effects of those
perceptions on employees, including their work-related attitudes and their
behaviors with respect to the hospitality program.
We
are aware of no studies that have examined the adoption of SSTs in the context
of cluster IT. As indicated, hotel IT incorporates a range of applications
using numerous platforms. Certain business environments are suitable for IT
adoption, and we suggest that they include industries that are people
intensive, involve rapid information processing and speedy delivery of jewelry
and bijoux, or are paper intensive. The cluster industry perfectly matches
these characteristics. The findings of prior studies identify three factors
that affect an organization’s adoption of IT: perceived benefits, organizational
readiness, and external pressures. From this IT model, our study focuses on the
two internal factors of perceived benefits and organizational readiness.
However,
as firms grow larger, they begin to stagnate, and they lose sight of the
factors that made them successful in the first place—the creation of a product
or service that people want. With respect to the hospitality program with SSTs,
established firms tend to develop bureaucratic (structural) and control system
impediments to innovation. While increasing the size of its business, the
question for a large hospitality company is how to maintain its entrepreneurial
spirit and to stimulate and foster innovation.
2.3.
Hospitality
The
emergence of the word ‘‘hospitality’’ to describe hotel and catering activities in English-speaking countries
opened up the study of these commercial sectors from social science perspectives. It appears that the description of hotel, restaurant and bar business as ‘‘hospitality’’ was an early attempt at spin,
that is, adapting
the name of the
sector to create a more favorable impression of commercial activities.
Reference
to the implied meaning of hospitality does open up some interesting avenues of enquiry
which may ultimately refocus commercial activities. Certainly recent academic developments, stimulated initially by
In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical perspectives and debates (LASHLEY;
MORRISON, 2000) and Hospitality: A social
lens (LASHLEY; LYNCH;
MORRISON, 2007c) have taken up some of the issues
that the word hospitality implies, as a way of better informing the
study of hospitality for those destined to manage hospitality business
operations.
Customers
in this new business environment expect to interact with organizations that are
ethical, have a good corporate image in the market, and act in an
environmentally responsible manner. In this environment emerged the hospitality
that emphasizes the commitment to sustainability with stakeholders (customers,
suppliers, customers, internal employees, financial institutions, NGOs, and the
general community), as a management tool for the optimization of economic
organization. According Montadon (2003) in hospitality is
give, receive and reciprocate.
This threefold duty Mauss
discovered within the sociality (the core of
the social) in archaic societies
respond to a double question: What
is the rule of law and interest in the
company is backward
or archaic type, makes this must be reciprocated? What strength there is in the thing given
which causes the done to repay? Own facts
observed by Mauss emphasizes a notion of hospitality
that begins as a gift and that
is not limited to the dynamics of
archaic societies (Montadon, 2003).
This does also raise issues about the nature
of commercial hospitality because one reading of Telfer’s assessment is that commercial hospitality is not likely to be
hospitable because of the provision of hospitality being linked to the ulterior
motive of profit generation. This debate will be engaged later in the section
on the commercial sector because the situation is more complex than it initially appears.
Although the
obligations to be hospitable no longer have the moral authority they once
had in advanced industrial societies, moralists continued to make reference
to them throughout the 20th century. Selwyn (2000) traces sermons by
religious leaders stretching into the
19th century, which extolled the virtues of giving hospitality. Writing
form, a Christian
perspective, Nouwen (1975) argues that hospitality should
consist of the following facets:
·
Free and friendly space
– creating physical, emotional and spiritual space for the stranger.
·
Stranger
becomes a guest – treated as a guest
and potential friend;
·
Guest protected
– offer sanctuary to the guest;
·
Host give gifts – the host welcomes the guest by providing the best gifts possible;
·
Guest gives gifts – the guest
reciprocates and gives
gifts to host;
·
All guests are important
and gifted – the host values the guest and gains value from them;
·
Acceptance,
not hostility – especially the kinds of subtle hostility, which makes fun of
strangers or puts them into embarrassing
situations;
·
Compassion
– hospitality is basically a sense of compassion.
Recent
business studies have led to the development of social enterprises associated
with the concept of corporate hospitality, the basic premise of which is the
view that business and society are interlinked and interdependent; there is
thus a set of legitimate expectations of society concerning the work of
companies and the results they achieve (WOOD, 1991). Later, Wood (1991) added
another component to these proposal results and social impacts of
organizational performance, as reflected by the observed outcomes associated
with the company’s relationship with society (WOOD, 1991).
The study of hospitality from wider social science perspectives enable an understanding of guest and host transactions that can inform
much management practice
and prerogatives. Traditional understandings of hospitality require hosts to be primarily concerned with ensuring
guest well-being and
the emotional needs of their guests. Using
some of these traditional models of
hospitality offers the opportunity to convert strangers
into friends. In a commercial context, this could be translated to converting customers
into friends (LASHLEY; MORRISON, 2000), thereby
providing the basis for competitive advantage and building a loyal customer
base.
Finally,
the obligations to be hospitable to strangers may change over time particularly as a society
feels under threat,
as contact with stranger’s increases, or as the benefits and costs of tourism are borne unevenly
through a community
or society. Molz (2005)
and Crang (2005) have used concepts of hospitality to explore the varying
responses of host communities to asylum seekers
and migrants. Hospitality in
the long term can build a differential value of the brand and a competitive
advantage for companies and providing social changes that improve life is a
challenge for social campaigns and the improve the organization
This view is supported by
Katunzi (2011), who identified several items as essential to the integration of
a hospitality program: cooperation, collaboration, information sharing, trust,
partnership and shared technology. In the view of Katunzi (2011), distortions
of information and the difficulties in visualizing information in a hospitality
program are common problems in the integration process. This lack of
information in a hospitality program is a long-term problem, so it reinforces
the lack of information sharing, which may result in the loss of end customers
and in higher costs. As one method of reducing problems regarding information,
Katunzi (2011) provides that, in the absence of an actual supply of
information, members of the cluster will eventually carve the data into SSTs.
3.
METHODOLOGY
This research is descriptive and
exploratory in nature, and the questions were based on a Likert scale and open
questions. The methods used included both qualitative and quantitative
evaluations of the model, and the results were analyzed with nonparametric
statistics.
First, we will address the
measurement of the questions used in the questionnaire. The research included
the administration of a questionnaire to owners and/or managers in the cluster
of knitwear and clothing in Socorro/SP. Excel 2010 and SPSS 20 were adopted as
informatics tools. As this research is descriptive and exploratory, various
tests were used to test hypotheses of the differences between the nominal
variables and opinions interval (Likert), and their correlations, including the
Kruskal-Wallis test.
A pretest of 10 businesses was
also performed with the intention of analyzing and validating the questionnaire
when the study was conducted. The pre-test was validated by three experts; this
step is extremely important in order to better understand the sphere that will
be researched. As a result of this pre-test, some questions were changed, and
the script was completed for the questions on the questionnaire. The vast
majority of the questions were closed and semi-structured.
For the study in question,
companies in the cluster of knitwear and clothing in Socorro/SP, which were
registered in that municipality, were considered. This research was used to
calculate a sample population that included 188 component companies of a
cluster that corresponded to 6,5% of all registered companies in the city and
53% of all companies in the clothing business (shops, dressmaking and
knitwear).
It was important for the study to be conducted in that city because of its relevance as an important cluster of knitwear and clothing in the State of São Paulo, as well as its strong attraction for tourists.
Also, it was conducted in that city for
the convenience and ease of the
researcher.
A formula for finite populations
was considered for this research. Assuming a confidence level of 90% and a
maximum error of 11%, a sample of 43 companies could be used to conduct the
research (Fonseca & Martins, 1996). However, the companies surveyed were
chosen for convenience, particularly, for ease of access to the respondents (Oliveira,
1999, p. 161).
For the research in question,
the size of the sample was 43. As previously mentioned, it was determined to be
40 companies through a calculation of formula 1 below:
n = (1)
n =
n = n =
43
Forty-three owners and/or
managers of knitwear and clothing companies in the city of Socorro/SP were
personally interviewed; however, the first three (listed as A, B and C) were
discarded because they responded to the questionnaire more than once, leaving
43 questionnaires for the analysis.
4.
ANALYSIS
AND RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
An analysis of the size of the
companies shows that 85% of the companies are micro, which represents 37 of the
companies surveyed, and 15% are small businesses, accounting for 6 of the
companies surveyed. A majority of the companies interviewed, 61%, had existed
for more than 10 years.
Despite the experience of the
companies surveyed, considering the length of their existence, they had a very
large idle capacity, if it is taken into account that they could operate for
three shifts. The analysis showed that 70% of these companies operate for only
one shift, and only 5% operate for three shifts.
Moreover, the monthly volume of
parts produced is, on average, 5100 products, while 78% of the companies
produce less than 10,000 products per month. With respect to different types of
products, the businesses produce, on average, 23 types of parts.
The following describe these
businesses:
a)
The
number of employees is distributed in the following proportions: 15% have 20 to
99 employees, and 85% have 1 to 19 workers,
b)
With
respect to longevity, the companies are distributed in the following
proportions: 30% have operated for two to 10 years, and 70% have existed for
more than 10 years,
c)
The
numbers of customers are distributed according to the following proportions:
55% have up to 25 clients, and 45% have more than 24 customers,
d)
The
markets in which they operate are distributed according to the following proportions:
35% operate only wholesale, 15% operate only as a shop, and 50% operate both
wholesale and as a shop.
e)
Forty-three
owners and/or managers of knitwear and clothing companies in the city of
Socorro/SP were personally interviewed; however, the first three (listed as A,
B and C) were discarded because they answered the questionnaire more than once,
leaving 40 questionnaires for the analysis. An analysis of the company size
shows micro businesses with less than 19 employees and small businesses from 20
to 99 employees. As shown in Figure 1, it can be observed that 85% of the
companies are micro businesses, representing 34 of the companies surveyed, and
15% are small businesses, accounting for six of the companies surveyed.
Figure 1: Size of companies
4.1.
Correlation
Analysis
A correlation analysis is used
to determine how the variables are related. A test can be used to verify the
correlation between two variables; the coefficient represented by the letter R
varies from -1 to 1, and the closer these extremes, the greater the degree of
correlation between the variables (Malhotra, 2006).
With the aim of conducting a
statistical analysis of the characteristics of the companies presented at the
beginning of Section 4, and for its subsequent interpretation, we calculated
the correlation coefficients between the nominal variables, and the results are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Pearson correlation
coefficient between the nominal variables
|
|
Instruction |
Age
Company |
Amount
Stock |
Market
operates |
Quantity
shifts |
Amount
Customers |
Value
Billing |
|
Instruction |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age Company |
0.172 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount Stock |
0.202 |
0.328 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Market
operates |
0.239 |
0.202 |
0.072 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Quantity
shifts |
0.382 |
0.313 |
0.552 |
0.103 |
1 |
|
|
|
Amount
Customers |
0.241 |
0.251 |
0.540 |
0.070 |
0.331 |
1 |
|
|
Value Billing |
0.369 |
0.266 |
0.688 |
0.175 |
0.517 |
0.442 |
1 |
In an analysis of the variable
instruction (the education level of the owner), no significant correlation with
the other variables was detected, only some positive correlation with the
variable value billing (0.369). However, it was not enough to assert that firms
in which the owner has higher qualifications tend to have higher turnover.
A significant correlation
between the firm age variable and the market in which it operates variable was
expected, as many of the respondents claimed to have a shop in addition to
operating a wholesale business, and to have years of work experience with
knitwear and/or clothing. One reason for this is the ability to minimize
problems by obtaining the best order from the customer, when the hospitality
program has increased considerably. Thus, the hospitality program could help to
reduce these inventories, as the words of the respondent Q15 indicate below.
However, a low correlation, 0.202, was detected.
Q15: "One problem I had in
the past with my stock was minimized when the hospitality program started
working in my shop ….”.
For further illustration,
respondent Q23 stated the following:
Q23: "Many companies here
in Socorro, but also in nearby towns, are kind of forced to have a shop in
addition to their factory. The store helps to distribute products that are not
manufactured and delivered to clients...”.
Regarding the variable, firm
age, no significant correlation with the other variables in hospitality was
detected. However, a significant correlation between the number of employees
and the amount of turns was identified, at 0.552; this was expected, even
considering that idleness has already been discussed with respect to
hospitality. A significant correlation between the variable, number of
employees, and the variable, amount of customers, was also detected, yielding
0.540; this may indicate a trend for companies with more employees to seek to
engage in more hospitality programs with their customers. Regarding the
variable, market in which it operates, as previously mentioned, a significant
correlation with the variable, age of the company, and their hospitality
programs was expected.
Finally, a significant
correlation between the number of customers and the value of sales was
expected, which was confirmed at 0.442. Aside from the aforementioned
correlation between the number of employees and the number of customers, no
significant correlation was detected with other variables in the function of
hospitality.
In the interest of strengthening
the analysis, a correlation test considering all variables was also performed,
wherein we found the following results: With respect to the company's
hospitality, we detected a correlation with revenues of 0.520; this correlation
was expected, because companies with higher revenues tend to buy raw materials
directly from manufacturers, and they have the advantage of better prices
because of their hospitality programs.
Another correlation of 0.600 was
found between a client who warns in time (hospitality relationship) of a need
to increase the amount it has previously requested and a business being able to
provide a timely notification to its provider when the business needs to
increase the amount previously requested. This index also was expected, because
companies are able tell their suppliers in advance about possible changes in
orders.
A correlation of 0.514 was found
between using a company’s own IT for the withdrawal of supplies of raw
materials and the delivery of products to its customers. This correlation can
be demonstrated, considering that various respondents claimed that they used
their IT with integrated communications.
Evidence of this is provided by
the statement of respondent Q37:
Q37: "In order to help my
production (or win time), I prefer to use my own IT system, both to obtain the
raw material, and to deliver the finished product to my client. I like doing
this because of the gains in time and money, or I can retreat when I need to
improve the gains through a good relationship."
4.2.
Questions
related to barriers
In the interest of knowing the
barriers and/or obstacles to coordinating the implementation of a hospitality
program, use the adaptation of the base established by the Chopra and Meindl (2003)
will be used; they divided the barriers into the following five categories,
which will be described below: incentive barriers, information processing
barriers, operational barriers, behavioral barriers and price barriers.
a)
Incentive
barriers: Such barriers arise when the gains do not reach the chain, because
the incentives are passed to different stages of the chain;
b)
Information
processing barriers: These barriers involve situations in which there are
distortions of the demand information between different stages;
c)
Operational
barriers: These barriers are actions performed in the period between the
issuance and service of applications, which lead to increased variability;
d)
Price
barriers: These barriers involve situations in which product pricing policies
lead to increased variability in issuing orders;
e)
Behavioral
barriers: These barriers are attitude problems in organizations that result in
whiplash and the problems that are often linked are the ways the hospitality
program is structured and communication between stages.
The following provides the
answers to the two questions related to incentive barriers, represented by the
percentage results from the following 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree
(SD), partially disagree (PD), indifferent (I), partially agree (SA), strongly
agree (SA), as shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Incentive barriers
|
BARRIERS OF
INCENTIVES |
|||||
|
Questions |
SD |
PD |
I |
PA |
SA |
|
Question 9 -
Are there goals for employees that manage hospitality, where there are
incentives to hit. |
42% |
13% |
22% |
20% |
3% |
|
Question 10 -
On the importance of working with incentives in hospitality |
3% |
0% |
27% |
25% |
45% |
In the responses to the
questions related to incentive barriers, which can be analyzed with respect to
question 9, there is a very strong concentration of firms that do not utilize
incentives to meet targets, with a percentage of 55%. However, the responses to
question 10 reveal that 70% of companies consider it important to work with
incentives. Despite having a large concentration of companies that view working
with incentives as important, in many open questions, the respondents
highlighted the importance of the incentives to all departments, without
creating competition between them. Respondent Q1 helped to highlight this issue
in the following statement:
Q1: "The company does not
work with cash incentives because of the fear that they will create competition
that disturbs the daily life of the company, and that they will not create
hospitality conditions …”.
Based on this vision, they
contribute what is needed to produce an alignment of goals and incentives, so
that each member of the hospitality program can maximize their total profits.
The following shows the answers to the three questions related to information
processing barriers, represented by the percentage results of the following
5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree (DT), partially disagree (SD),
indifferent (I) agree partially (CP) totally agree (CT), as shown in Tables 3
and 4 below.
Table 3: Barriers in processing
information
|
BARRIER IN PROCESSING INFORMATION |
|||||
|
Questions |
Only with More Orders |
Orders Orders that
consumption |
Orders and Equal
Consumption |
More than consumption
Requests |
Only consumption |
|
Question 7 -How to use the hospitality |
15% |
28% |
11% |
23% |
23% |
In observing question 7, we
visualized a very similar percentage between companies that work with more
requests than consumption and companies that work with most of the applications
that they use.
Table 4: Barriers in information
processing
|
Questions |
SD |
PD |
I |
PA |
SA |
|
Question 11 – The hospitality in your company
warn customers in advance and inform the subject when will buy larger
quantities than normal allowing your company to plan material purchases and
manufacturing |
11% |
17% |
18% |
28% |
26% |
|
Question 12 – The hospitality program in your
company warns in advance and inform your supplier will see why when you buy
larger quantities than normal |
8% |
5% |
17% |
47% |
23% |
Below are the answers of
respondents Q5 and Q7 regarding the exchange of information:
Q5: "I (the owner) will
make the first customer contact, and once a year, I personally look at the
prospects for the next year and pick up important information, and other
contacts are made via the hospitality program…."
Q7: "The exchange of
information here is made by a hospitality program to a seller that goes to
companies that conduct sales; many customers make their requests through the IT
system."
Question 11 (warning customers
in advance and informing the subject when you will buy larger quantities than
normal, which allows your company to plan material purchases and manufacturing)
shows that 46% of companies agree that they are warned in advance, which is a
percentage that is greater than the sum of respondents who are not usually
advised, which amount to 33%, with an average score of 3.15.
Q8: "The exchange of
information is accomplished via email and telephone, not through an appropriate
hospitality program. There are some setbacks when the client connects to make a
change; however, this happens in a timely manner."
With respect to question 12
(your company provides warning in advance and informs your supplier when you
will buy larger quantities than normal), it appears that the vast majority of
companies, 68%, are able do this with ease, with an average score of 3.7.
Many respondents addressed this
question as a result of the above, i.e., if the customer notifies the company
in advance, the company can notify its supplier. Some of the respondents’
statements provide evidence of this:
Q3: "When the seller is in
my business and is closing the application, if my customer calls and changes
his order, up or down, I can then call my provider and do the same. If my
client calls with a change in the time, I can provide notice to my supplier of
the time. This is a consequence of the hospitality program."
Q40: "The exchange of
information with suppliers is done via the hospitality program. If you need to
increase or decrease the amount, or even to change the delivery date, I can
provide notice in time, if my client tells me in time; but this is unlikely to
happen, because he always calls at the last minute."
Other respondents show a strong
affinity with their supplier. Considering their competition, many of them also
go to the company to carry out their requests, and they always end up calling
to verify possible changes. Below are some answers that demonstrate this fact.
Q1: "Many vendors end up
coming directly to the company, primarily through their current
competitors.
They bring samples, and because
we already make, more or less, what we pay, we then "fight" for the
best price and quality. Also, they continue to call later, asking: Can we
increase the request? There's still time! We take the opportunity to grow and
shrink as needed, because of an inappropriate hospitality program."
Q5: "The exchange of
information with suppliers is much quieter, because they ask directly through
the hospitality program for convenience."
The implementation of
information systems facilitates data sharing to avoid problems caused by
barriers to information processing; however, the vast majority of respondents
said that they only use telephones and e-mail, and none of them stated that
they use any type of system that shares data. They do not have hospitality
programs.
The following shows the answers
to the four questions related to operational barriers, which are represented by
the percentage results on the following 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree
(SD), partially disagree (PD), indifferent (I), partially agree (PA) totally
agree (SA), as shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Operational Hospitality
barriers
|
OPERATING HOSPITALITY
BARRIERS |
|||||
|
Questions |
SD |
PD |
I |
PA |
SA |
|
Question 14 -
The company uses the most supplies for implement a good hospitality program |
10% |
10% |
10% |
30% |
40% |
|
Question 15 -
The availability of information on historical sales of items is quick and
organized. |
1% |
7% |
11% |
24% |
57% |
|
Question 20 -
The program of hospitality usually be stopped with stock products planned,
produced and cut the customer request. |
19% |
21% |
20% |
25% |
15% |
Question 14 shows that 70% of
companies contact their customers using their own hospitality programs. The
companies that were interviewed indicate that there are no information systems
incorporating their departments, such as IT, which would support a possible
reduction of lead-time to obtain information faster and would show a very large
degree of organization.
Question 15 easily proves that
information on historical sales of items is available in a quick and organized
manner, and 81% of companies demonstrated that they have knowledge of their
historical sales, with an average score of 4.275. Considering this figure,
which shows that 81% of companies have knowledge about their historical
customer sales, and consequently, their demand, it is worth noting that many
respondents claimed that they warn and/or question their clients when they
receive requests asking for lots that are larger than usual, as the following
respondent indicates:
"Q38: Always confirm the
amount requested in the email request or call using the hospitality program,
especially if the amount is much larger than the accustomed amount."
Question 20 demonstrates that
this is not the case for 40% of companies. However, a significant number of
companies suffering from an inventory of products that have been manufactured,
but have not reached their final destination, have customers. A theoretical
inventory can be a problem for companies, because of costs and because it can
cause problems such as whiplash in the absence of a hospitality program.
The following shows the answers
to the two questions related to price barriers, which are represented by the
percentage results on the following 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree
(SD), partially disagree (PD), indifferent (I), partially agree (PD), strongly
agree (SD), as shown in Tables 6 and 7 below.
Table 6: Price barriers
|
PRICE BARRIERS CREATED BY SUPPLIERS |
|||||
|
Questions |
Almost only
Wholesalers / Distributors |
Only Wholesalers/Distributors |
Mist |
Almost only
manufacturers |
Only Direct from
Manufacturers |
|
Question 8 - sources of supplies. |
22% |
28% |
5% |
17% |
38% |
For question 8 (relating to the
company’s sources of supply to offer greater hospitality
to customers), it
was expected that companies carry out cluster purchases directly from
manufacturers, i.e., they buy together; however, only 38% of companies buy
directly from manufacturers, and 28% of companies buy from wholesalers and
distributors.
Table 7: Price barriers created by
suppliers
|
Questions |
SD |
PD |
I |
PA |
SA |
|
Question
13 - The company usually make purchases of products in larger batches to save
thinking, as well as using IT system |
8% |
3% |
6% |
45% |
38% |
For question 13, we show an
average score of 4.0, whereas 83% of companies buy larger quantities in order
to obtain savings. This enables the company to obtain larger discounts on
purchases made at one time, and possibly, to obtain a larger profit on product
sales.
The respondents are aware of
this fact, but primarily, they explain that this is normal because their
companies have cash and good IT systems (hospitality programs). When a company
buys of season to obtain better prices or even because of a fear that there
will be a lack of raw material, suppliers and businesses are accustomed to
this, as the respondents indicate below:
"Q2: I choose the best
prices and best terms, because all of my suppliers have the same quality. I do
not really like having stock, but because the IT system covers all of them, we
are required to have it, both because of the fear that there will be a lack of
raw material or because the best prices are out of season."
"Q12: I shop in larger
batches for better prices, make cash payments and shop even out of season, so
that I can obtain more discounts. If a promotion appears for yarn, I buy it in
order to sell cheaper, because the competition is great, and I have a
hospitality program."
The following shows the answers
to the four questions related to behavioral barriers, represented by the
percentage results on the following 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree
(SD), partially disagree (PD), indifferent (I), partially agree (PA) totally
agree (SA), as shown in Table 8 below.
Observing the responses to the
questions related to behavioral barriers, which can be analyzed in question 16,
there is a strong concentration of companies that verifies whether they have
enough people, hospitality programs and machines to produce and deliver orders
on the requested dates, with a percentage of 95% and an average score of 4.5.
Table 8: Behavioral barriers
|
BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS |
||||||
|
Questions |
SD |
PD |
I |
PA |
SA |
|
|
Question
16 - The company receiving the request, there will be enough people and
machines to produce and deliver on the date requested. (hospitality program) |
2% |
0% |
2% |
36% |
60% |
|
|
Question
17 - Does the company have the information of time for weaving, sewing,
ironing, packing each item (IT) |
9% |
7% |
1% |
23% |
60% |
|
|
Question
18 - The quantities of materials stored coincide with the quantities marked
on the computer or card stock, as the company cares to count inventory and
verify the reasons of errors with frequency. (hospitality program) |
9% |
8% |
9% |
44% |
30% |
|
|
Question
19 - The employees involved are seeking to plan and monitor the entire
manufacturing as well as ensure that the stocks of materials are well
controlled. (IT) |
0% |
1% |
18% |
44% |
37% |
|
Question 17 also shows an
average score of 4.0, with a strong concentration of companies having
information about the times of each item, at 83%. Referring to question 18,
there is a strong concentration of companies that check the amounts of stock
and check for errors and their reasons, at 74%, with an average score of 3.8.
The companies in the cluster that make an effort to focus on the root of the
problem in order to reach a final resolution, as well as the companies
surveyed, are concerned with their hospitality programs.
"Q6: The company is trying
to install a system or a hospitality program to reduce the number of times that
we take stock to make a count. Considering the ease, I also have a spreadsheet
where I record the possible reason for the error."
On issue 19, there is a strong
concentration demonstrating that employees care and engage, with 81% agreement
and an average score of 3.95.
4.3.
Quantitative
Analysis with Cronbach’s Alpha
The analysis, using Cronbach’s
alpha, aims to demonstrate consistency in the different variables of the
barriers to the implementation of hospitality programs. The calculation of the
value of Cronbach's α was performed using SPSS v20. For the analysis, we
selected the following: Analyze Scaling and Reliability Analysis. Further, the
tests were scored: Descriptive for Item, Scale and Scale if item is deleted,
and Inter-item correlations. SPSS v20 provides several important findings;
Table 9 shows the Summary Item Statistics, which provides a summary of the
statistical values of the variables.
Table 9: Statistics Summary
|
|
MEAN |
MINIMUM |
MAXIMUM |
RANGE |
Max/Min |
Variance |
N. of Items |
|
Item means |
3.568 |
2.275 |
4.500 |
2.225 |
1.978 |
0.414 |
15 |
|
Item variance |
1.558 |
0.613 |
2.913 |
2.300 |
4.753 |
0.461 |
15 |
According to Guimarães et al.
(2010), in their study, a Cronbach’s α coefficient greater than 0.60 is
accepted as reliable. The obtained value of the Cronbach’s α in this case was
0.637, indicating good consistency, and an indicator a high degree of confidence
may be extended to other work-related barriers to the implementation of SCM,
which are shown in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Cronbach / Reliability statistics
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on Standardized Items |
Number of Items |
|
0,637 |
0,672 |
15 |
The interpretation of Cronbach’s
α can be understood as a squared correlation coefficient (R ²) of the alleged
real extent of the phenomenon studied.
When evaluating the scale mean,
if an item is deleted (average scale if the item is discarded), there is an
average of 53.53, with a standard deviation of 6.843, as shown in Table 11
below.
Table 11: Statistics scale
|
Mean |
Variance |
Std. Deviation |
Nº of Items |
|
53,53 |
46,820 |
6,843 |
15 |
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this research
was to analyze and verify the barriers that companies in a knitwear and
clothing cluster in Socorro/SP face in implementing hospitality programs. As
the results indicate, the surveyed companies show more weakness in the items
related to information processing (IT systems); there is evidence that this
area needs improvements, such as systems that integrate their businesses with
their suppliers and customers. Despite this, the companies have demonstrated
control of their processes, their historical sales and their prepayments when
necessary.
The information processing
barriers are valid and should take into account the suggestions of Meindl and
Chopra (2003), who assert the importance of having integration through an IT
system and a hospitality program; thus, this integration will be suggested as a
recommendation.
From the results shown, it
appears that the cluster of knitwear and clothing in Socorro/SP demonstrates
that, in general, they are obstructing the possible implementation of
hospitality programs. Figure 2, below, provides the view of barriers versus the
position of the respondents.
|
BARRIERS |
CHOPRA AND MEINDL VISION |
RESPONDENTS SEARCH |
|
Providing incentives to different
stages |
A very high percentage of respondents
do not work with incentives (average score 2,3) |
|
|
Barriers |
|
Many respondents consider that the
incentive |
|
Incentives |
Incentives focused
only |
Is only valid when all this the hits
(open issues) with |
|
on the local impact |
a mean score of 4.1 considered
important |
|
|
Relying only on applications may
increase the variability |
Companies tend to work with the
customer request (Average score 2.9) |
|
|
Barriers |
Lack of information sharing between
the many stages |
The companies consider that a good
share customer |
|
Information |
Advantages to use some sort of
integrated system |
Information is important (Average
score 3.15) The
companies consider adequately share |
|
Advantages to use some sort of
integrated system |
information with is supplier (Average
score 3.7) |
|
|
Shopping with much large lots that |
They confirm that use of own resource
to support the customer (Average score 3.7). |
|
|
Operational |
demand may increase
variability |
Demonstrate facilities to solve
problems (Average 4.2) |
|
Long lead time extends to resupply |
Demonstrate facilities to solve
problems (Average 4.2) |
|
|
Barriers |
Long lead time extends to resupply |
They know is necessary for good
attendance and hospitality |
|
Inventories too high can cause
financial problems |
|
|
|
Saving based on batch size can magnify
problems |
||
|
|
Because create good hospitality (Average
score 4.0) |
|
|
Price |
Promotions can result in anticipated
purchase |
Many companies demonstrated at the
open question |
|
Barriers |
Many companies demonstrated at the
open question they bay, not for hospitality, but because seasonality |
|
|
Vision and/or local concern only |
Companies are concerned with the
whole, |
|
|
|
Demonstrating the importance of
customer and |
|
|
Behaoviral |
|
the hospitality process (Average score
4.5) |
|
Barriers |
Trust in employees |
The companies show that the employees
engage and demonstrate concern with the hospitality |
|
|
Process (Average
score 3.9) |
Figure
2: Adapted barriers of Chopra and Meindl (2003) versus the position of
respondents
The results were very favorable
regarding the incentive barriers, because the companies demonstrate that they
do not work with incentives and their justifications are very close to the
possible problems. The companies that do not work with incentives show an
interest, but the respondents stressed that the incentives must be for
everyone, and should not be individual, which could be a barrier to the
implementation of a hospitality program.
The companies have very valuable
experience in their businesses, which tends to help in some decisions. This was
easily found on items covering aspects relating to historical sales, and when
they were asked if they are stocked when a customer cancels an order. In this
case, companies are prepared to demonstrate that they do not suffer from
operational barriers. Referring to price barriers, knitwear and clothing firms,
as representatives of the cluster, could benefit more by joining an integrated
hospitality program. However, they obtain better prices and terms for reasons
such as: competition, cash purchases, necessity, seasonality and opting for
advance purchases to cut costs and fearing possible shortages of raw materials
in their hospitality programs. However, they constantly discuss all of those
reasons with their suppliers.
Finally, the behavioral barriers
were satisfactory; the agreement, with an above average score of 3.8, shows
that companies are prepared for possible integration, as they demonstrated that
they are not only are concerned with particular functions or activities, but
with the whole.
One limitation of this research,
which was conducted only in the city of Socorro/SP, is that it does not reflect
a broad view of a cluster. Thus, further research of other clusters in other
cities, a comparison of the differences between the cities to ascertain if
there is any correlation, a comparison of the clusters, and an extension of
this research to other segments are recommended.
REFERENCES
BALLOU, R. H. (2001). Supply
chain management: planning, organization and logistics business, Porto
Alegre: Campos.
CHOPRA, S.; MEINDL, P. (2003). Managing the supply chain, New York: Pearson Prentice.
CHATHOTH, P. (2007). The impact of information technology
on hotel operations, service management and transaction costs: A conceptual
framework for full-service hotel firms. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, v. 26, n. 2, p. 395–408
CRANG, P.
(2005) Hospitality, the city, and cafe´ culture: Cosmopolitanism,
conviviality and contemplation in
Chueca, Madrid. Conference Abstracts, Mobilising Hospitality:The Ethics of
Social Relations in a Mobile World.
Lancaster: Lancaster University.
FANG, C.; PENG, P. P.; PAN, W. (2011). Does
an a la carte or combo menu affect the performance of a teppanyaki-style
restaurant? International Journal of
Contemporany Hospitality Management, v. 25, n. 4.
FONSECA, J. S.; MARTINS, G. A. (1996). Statistics
course. Sao Paulo: Atlas, p. 320.
Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism.
GUIMARÃES, T.; BRANDON, B.; GUIMARÃES, E. R. (2010).
Empirically testing some major factors for bank innovation success. Journal of Performance Management, v. 23,
n. 2, p. 34. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/856125539?accountid=34749.
Acessed on em: 16 may, 2012.
IACONO, A.; NAGANO, M. S. (2009). Interaction and
cooperation in local clusters: Identification and analysis of the inhibiting
factors. XII Symposium on production
management, logistics and international operations, São Paulo.
IP, C.; LEUNG, R.; LAW, R. (2011) Progress
and Developmentof Information and Communication Technologies in Hospital-ity. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, v. 23, p. 533-51.
KATUNZI, T. M. (2011). Obstacles to Process Integration
along the Supply Chain: Manufacturing Firms Perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, v. 6, n. 5, p. 105-113.
LASHLEY, C.; MORRISON, A.
(2000) In Search of Hospitality:
Theoretical Perspectives and Debates,
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
LASHLEY, C.; ROWSON, B. (2005). Getting it Right: Exploring
Information Technology in the Hospitality Curriculum. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, v. 17, n. 1, p. 94-105
LASHLEY, C.; LYNCH, P.; MORRISON, A. (2007) Hospitality: An introduction. In: LASHLEY,
C.; LYNCH, P.; MORRISON, A. (Eds.),
Hospitality: A Social Lens (Oxford: Elsevier).
LAUDON, K. C.; LAUDON, J. P. (2010). Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm. 11th ed. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
LAW,
R.; LEUNG, R.; BUHALIS, D. (2009). Information Technology Applications in
Hospitality and Tourism: A Review of Publications from 2005 to 2007. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
v. 26, n. 5/6, p. 599-633.
MALHOTRA, N. K (2006). Marketing
Research: An Applied Orientation. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
MARTINS, R.; XAVIER, W. S.; SON, O. V. S.; MARTINS, G. S. (2011). Management Strategies logistics operations in
industrial organizations of a local productive arrangement (APL). Journal of Directors of UNIMEP, v. 9,
n. 1, p. 01-31.
MOLZ, J. G. (2005) Cosmopolitans on the couch: mobilising hospitality and the internet.
Conference Abstracts, Mobilising Hospitality: The Ethics of Social Relations in a Mobile
World. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
NOUWEN, H. (1975) Reaching Out:
The Three Movements
of the Spiritual Life. New York: Doubleday
& Co.
OLAVE, M. E. L.; AMATO NETO, J. (2001). Productive Cooperation Networks:
a strategy for survival and competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. Magazine & Production Management,
v. 8, n. 3, p. 289-303.
OLIVEIRA, S. L. (1999). Treaty of scientific methodology. 3rd. ed., St. Paul: Pioneer.
PETTER, R. R.; RESENDE, L. M.; CERANTO, F. A. A. (2011). ;
Maturity level of local production: A diagnosis of APL in caps Apucarana - PR. Production Magazine Online. v.11, n. 3,
p. 803-822.
KIN,
J.; CHRISTODOULIDOU, N.; BREWE, P. (2011). Impactof Individual Differences and
Consumers’ Readiness on Likelihood of Using Self-Service Technologies at Hospitality
Settings. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research.
PORTER, M. E. (1998).
Clusters and the new economics of
competition. Harvard Business: Review.
POZO, H. (2010). Management
of material resources and heritage: a logistic approach, São Paulo, Atlas.
SEBRAE-SP, (2009). Rating
Criteria and Concepts for Business. São Paulo. Disponível in: http://sebrae.sp.gov.br. Accessed on: 27 January In 2012
SELWYN, T. (2000) An anthropology of hospitality. In: LASHLEY,
C.; MORRISON, A. (E In Search of
Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
ZACARELLI, S. B. (2005). Strategies and success in business, São Paulo, Saraiva.
ZACARELLI, S. B.; TELLES, R.; SIQUEIRA, J. P. L.;
BOAVENTURA, J. M. G.; DONAIRE, D. (2008). Clusters
and business networks: a vision for the management of business, São Paulo:
Atlas.